Timothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peacehttp://www.cato.org/
enamast@cato.org (Andrew Mast)webmaster@cato.org (Cato Webmaster)Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:56:09 -0500Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:56:09 -0500Rosebrock v. Hoffmanhttp://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/rosebrock-v-hoffman
<p>Vietnam vet Robert Rosebrock is 72 years old, but he&rsquo;s still got enough fight in him to stand up for what he believes in. The Veteran&rsquo;s Administration of Greater Los Angeles (VAGLA) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would prefer his fight to be in vain. Rosebrock&rsquo;s fight here is a protest against VAGLA&rsquo;s use of a parcel of land deeded to the U.S. government for the care of homeless veterans for purposes other than that purpose. For example, VAGLA leased parts of the land to a private school, an entertainment company, and a soccer club, and occasionally used it for hosting events. Every Sunday for 66 weeks, Rosebrock hung at least one and as many as 30 U.S. flags from a border fence on the VA property that he believed was being misused. After seeing a celebrity gala event on the property one Sunday afternoon, Rosebrock started hanging flags with the stars down, signifying dire distress to life and property&mdash;the distress faced by LA&rsquo;s homeless veterans. At this point, VAGLA started enforcing its policy against &ldquo;displaying of placards or posting of materials on bulletin boards or elsewhere on [VA] property.&rdquo; When Rosebrock continued, believing his First Amendment rights would protect him, he was issued six criminal citations. He then stopped hanging his flag upside down but was later allowed to hang it right-side-up&mdash;a clear if unusual example of viewpoint-based speech discrimination that violates the First Amendment. That part of his case was a slam-dunk; the difficulty came in making the violation matter. Rosebrock turned to the courts asking two things: an order that would stop VAGLA from discriminating against him in the future and one that would allow him to display his flag stars-down for an amount of time equal to how long he had been denied the right to display it. The district court found that because the VAGLA associate director sent an email to the VA police that the &ldquo;no signs&rdquo; regulation should be enforced precisely, Rosebrock&rsquo;s requested remedies were denied as moot&mdash;meaning, basically, that because VAGLA said it would play by the rules, the Court wouldn&rsquo;t order them to. This is known in legal circles as &ldquo;voluntary cessation&rdquo;. Not long after the district court&rsquo;s dismissal, the VA police disregarded the email and allowed Iraq War veterans to protest in violation of the regulation. Rosebrock raised this fact when he appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling without even addressing the continued discriminatory enforcement. To paraphrase, the appellate panel held that although there is a great burden for parties seeking to prove mootness through voluntary cessation, we should trust that the government will do what it says. Robert Rosebrook said, &ldquo;no thanks,&rdquo; and is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear his case. Cato agrees, and has joined the Pacific Legal Foundation and Institute for Justice in a brief supporting the petition. We point out that the federal appeals courts are split on this mootness/voluntary cessation issue, that it&rsquo;s an issue that arises all the time, and that there&rsquo;s no reason that government entities should be given a benefit of the doubt while everyone else has to prove &ldquo;it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.&rdquo; The Supreme Court should take this case and tell the lower courts what we know, what Robert Rosebrock knows, and what everyone else in the country should already know by now: it doesn&rsquo;t always make sense to take the government at its word.</p>
http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/rosebrock-v-hoffmanMon, 23 Feb 2015 08:52 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy Sandefur, Wencong Fa, Larry Salzman, Ilya ShapiroTimothy Sandefur discusses the judge's injunction on Obama's immigration plan on FBN's Kennedyhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-judges-injunction-obamas-immigration-plan
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-judges-injunction-obamas-immigration-planTue, 17 Feb 2015 11:05 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurDo We Really Want a Passive Judiciary? No.http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/do-we-really-want-passive-judiciary-no
<p>Senator Rand Paul&rsquo;s recent remarks about &ldquo;judicial restraint&rdquo; have shaken up both left and right, but anyone who has stood before a judge or jury knows he&rsquo;s talking sense. &ldquo;We say we don&rsquo;t want judges writing laws,&rdquo; Paul told an audience at the Heritage Foundation. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t want them writing laws either, but do I want judges to protect my freedom, do I want judges to take an activist role in preserving liberty?&rdquo;</p>
<p>Obviously the answer is yes. Any plaintiff or defendant wants the court to be alert to protect the rights of the innocent. That requires judges to actively examine the facts and the law, to reach just and rational results. But under the theory of &ldquo;judicial restraint&rdquo; that prevails in today&rsquo;s courtrooms, judges often do the opposite. That theory&mdash;which applies to many of our most important constitutional cases&mdash;requires judges to presume in the government&rsquo;s favor, disregard the evidence, and even invent rationalizations for laws that cannot stand rigorous scrutiny.</p>
<p>As a practicing attorney, I&rsquo;ve often seen &ldquo;judicial restraint&rdquo; work as a rubber stamp: anything the government says is a good idea is upheld, regardless of the facts or the injustice of the law. That&rsquo;s what happened in the infamous <em>Kelo v. New London</em>decision, where the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to seize people&rsquo;s homes and give the land to developers to replace with shopping malls or luxury condos. The Constitution says government may only take property for &ldquo;public use,&rdquo; not private uses like malls, but the Court held that as long as bureaucrats thought Connecticut&rsquo;s redevelopment project would benefit the public, judges should defer to them.</p>
<blockquote class="pullquote right">
<p class="pq-quote"><span class="open-quote">&ldquo;</span><span class="pq-body">The Constitution promises uncompromising protection of liberty.&rdquo;</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Or consider the Louisiana law that required anyone wanting to open a florist shop to get a license. Getting licensed wasn&rsquo;t easy&mdash;it required expensive training, and a tough exam. Why should someone who wants to arrange flowers be forbidden from doing so without government permission? But when the law was challenged in court, the judge upheld it because officials claimed it might protect consumers from scratching their fingers on the wires florists use to hold bouquets together. There was no evidence that this was a realistic danger. Instead, the real reason for the law&mdash;as government witness admitted under oath&mdash;was to protect established florists from having to compete against entrepreneurs. Yet &ldquo;restrained&rdquo; courts often ignore real facts and uphold laws on silly pretexts.</p>
<p>Leaders in Houston decided in 2007 to limit the number of new taxi licenses available, giving more new licenses to long-established businesses, and only a handful to the many new companies hoping to enter the market. This discrimination wasn&rsquo;t based on the safety record or experience of the different firms, but simply on economic favoritism. But when challenged, judges upheld the law because the city &ldquo;might have&rdquo; thought the existing companies would do a better job than the new ones. Actual evidence was unnecessary.</p>
<p>Not to be outdone, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a licensing law that prohibits anyone other than funeral directors from selling coffins, even though the court admitted that the law only protected established businesses, not consumers. &ldquo;Economic protectionism constitutes a legitimate state interest,&rdquo; the court said. Thus even when lawmakers restrict freedom simply to protect cronies, instead of the general public, courts should do nothing. And a federal court in Virginia recently dismissed a case that challenged laws which require medical clinics to get permission from their own competitors before they may buy much-needed scanning equipment. The doctors who sued hoped to prove that the laws unreasonably restricted their right to start new businesses. Yet the judge refused to even hear their case, declaring that &ldquo;[e]ven if plaintiffs had evidence&rdquo; that the laws &ldquo;do not in fact advance&ldquo; the government&rsquo;s asserted goals, that evidence &ldquo;would be of no moment.&rdquo;</p>
<p>In all these cases, courts have chosen to defer to government&rsquo;s decisions without regard to the facts. Yet the Constitution makes no reference to &ldquo;judicial restraint.&rdquo; It promises uncompromising protection of liberty.</p>
<p>Politicians often like &ldquo;judicial restraint&rdquo; because it allows them greater power. They typically warn of the dangers of &ldquo;activist&rdquo; courts contradicting &ldquo;the will of the people.&rdquo; Judges and law professors also claim that the pro-government bias of the deference rule serves democratic values. Professor Cass Sunstein, for instance, complains that Sen. Paul&rsquo;s call for a more engaged judiciary &ldquo;would empower federal judges to exercise far too much authority over the American people.&rdquo;</p>
<p>But our Constitution doesn&rsquo;t provide for simple majority rule. It created a court system, as The Federalist Papers explains, &ldquo;to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature,&rdquo; and keep politicians &ldquo;within the limits assigned to their authority.&rdquo; Without an engaged judiciary, the Constitution&rsquo;s limits on legislative power are rendered null.</p>
<p>Most of the laws under governing our lives aren&rsquo;t written by elected officials anyway. They&rsquo;re typically produced by administrative agencies&mdash;hired bureaucrats&mdash;over whom voters have no control. Upholding their acts on the theory of &ldquo;democracy&rdquo; is absurd, because bureaucracies are not democratic institutions.</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s also telling that courts only apply &ldquo;restraint&rdquo; in some cases, not others. In cases involving freedom of speech or religion, judges vigilantly strike down all but the most clearly justified restrictions. But when it comes to private property, or the right to earn a living, they uphold almost anything government chooses to do. If democratic values require deference in the latter cases, why not the former? Why not let large religious groups restrict the rights of small ones, or allow the majority to tell dissenters what they may publish or say?</p>
<p>The answer is clear: our Constitution creates a system of checks and balances limiting government, in order to protect freedom. If &ldquo;judicial activism&rdquo; is a risk, it is far less dangerous that judicial passivity. Judges take an oath to support the Constitution&mdash;not to yield to the majority. Their duty, and the security of our constitutional freedom, requires engagement, not restraint.</p>
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/do-we-really-want-passive-judiciary-noTue, 10 Feb 2015 09:45 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses his book, "The Conscience of the Constitution", on Dial Global's The Jim Bohannon Showhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-dial
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-dialThu, 27 Nov 2014 15:50 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses his book, "The Conscience of the Constitution", on VCT Access 27 TVhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-vct-access-27
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-vct-access-27Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:45 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses the Constitution on FBN's Stosselhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-constitution-fbns-stossel-0
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-constitution-fbns-stossel-0Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:00 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurOccupational Licensing in the Crosshairshttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/occupational-licensing-crosshairs
<p>Cases moving through the courts threaten to undo various occupational licensing regimes. Timothy Sandefur comments.</p>
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/occupational-licensing-crosshairsFri, 19 Sep 2014 18:10 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurIndustry Groups Cloaked with State Power Shouldn't Get Antitrust Immunityhttp://www.cato.org/blog/industry-groups-cloaked-state-power-shouldnt-get-antitrust-immunity
<p>Under a 1943 Supreme Court decision called <em>Parker v. Brown, </em>state governments and private parties who act on state orders are typically immune from prosecution under federal antitrust laws. Thus, while private parties who create cartels face severe penalties, state governments can authorize the same anti-competitive behavior with impunity.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Still, the Supreme Court has held that this kind of immunity only applies if the private parties who engage in cartel behavior are “actively supervised” by state officials. A case now before the Supreme Court, <em>N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners</em> <em>v.FTC</em>,<em>&nbsp;</em>presents an opportunity to expand on that directive.</p>
<p>Beginning in about 2003, the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners issued cease-and-desist orders to beauticians and others who were offering “teeth whitening” services (in which a plastic strip treated with peroxide is applied to the teeth in order to make them brighter).&nbsp;Although teeth-whitening is perfectly safe—and can even be done at home with an over-the-counter kit—the state&#8217;s licensed dentists want to limit competition in this lucrative area.</p>
<p>The Board is made up entirely of practicing dentists and hygienists and is elected by other licensed dentists and hygienists—with no input from the general public—and evidence later revealed that the Board issued orders on this subject in response to complaints from dentists, not consumers. The Federal Trade Commission charged the Board with engaging in anticompetitive conduct.&nbsp;Although the Board argued that it should enjoy <em>Parker</em> immunity, the FTC, and later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, rejected that argument, holding that the Board was not “actively supervised” by the state, but was instead a group of private business owners exploiting government power.</p>
<!--break--><p>
Whatever one&#8217;s opinion of antitrust law—Cato’s <a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust">isn’t</a> <a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/antitrust-case-repeal">too</a> <a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-time-reexamine-antitrust-legislation">favorable</a>—existing immunity doctrines are irrational and dangerous, and allow private entities to use government power to raise prices and restrict consumer choice.&nbsp;Worse, state-established cartels can frequently harm constitutional rights, such as the right to earn a living, by barring new businesses from opening.&nbsp;The North Carolina case is a prime example of private entities arbitrarily abusing government power to block entrepreneurs from entering an industry and providing for themselves and their families.</p>
<p>Cato and the Pacific Legal Foundation filed <a href="http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/nc-dental-merits-brief.pdf">a Supreme Court brief</a> supporting the FTC—you know it’s a bad case when we’re on the federal government’s side!—and arguing that courts should only rarely immunize private parties who act on government&#8217;s behalf. The Fourth Circuit was not only correct in applying the “active supervision” requirement, but existing immunity doctrines are too lax.&nbsp;Instead, courts should grant antitrust immunity to private entities acting under color of state law only where their restraint on competition is <em>commanded</em> <em>by</em> <em>state</em> <em>law</em>, and where that restraint&nbsp;substantially advances an important state interest.&nbsp;This test would help protect the constitutional right to economic liberty against the only entity that can normally create monopolies and yet which today enjoys immunity from antimonopoly laws: the government.</p>
<p>The case will be argued at the Supreme Court on October 14.</p>
http://www.cato.org/blog/industry-groups-cloaked-state-power-shouldnt-get-antitrust-immunityThu, 07 Aug 2014 08:35 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy Sandefur, Ilya ShapiroNorth Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commissionhttp://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/north-carolina-board-dental-examiners-v-federal-trade-commission
<p>Under a 1943 Supreme Court decision called <em>Parker v. Brown, </em>state governments and private parties who act on state orders are typically immune from prosecution under federal antitrust laws. Thus, while private parties who create cartels face severe penalties, state governments can authorize the same anti-competitive behavior with impunity. Still, the Supreme Court has held that this kind of immunity only applies if the private parties who engage in cartel behavior are “actively supervised” by state officials. A case now before the Supreme Court presents an opportunity to expand on that directive. Beginning in about 2003, the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners issued cease-and-desist orders to beauticians and others who were offering “teeth whitening” services (in which a plastic strip treated with peroxide is applied to the teeth in order to make them brighter). Although teeth-whitening is perfectly safe&mdash;and can even be done at home with an over-the-counter kit&mdash;the state&#8217;s licensed dentists want to limit competition in this lucrative area. The Board is made up entirely of practicing dentists and hygienists and is elected by other licensed dentists and hygienists&mdash;with no input from the general public&mdash;and evidence later revealed that the Board issued orders on this subject in response to complaints from dentists, not consumers. The Federal Trade Commission charged the Board with engaging in anticompetitive conduct. Although the Board argued that it should enjoy <em>Parker</em> immunity, the FTC, and later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, rejected that argument, holding that the Board was not “actively supervised” by the state, but was instead a group of private business owners exploiting government power. Whatever one&#8217;s opinion of antitrust law&mdash;Cato’s isn’t too favorable&mdash;existing immunity doctrines are irrational and dangerous, and allow private entities to use government power to raise prices and restrict consumer choice. Worse, state-established cartels can frequently harm constitutional rights, such as the right to earn a living, by barring new businesses from opening. The North Carolina case is a prime example of private entities arbitrarily abusing government power to block entrepreneurs from entering an industry and providing for themselves and their families. Cato and the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a brief supporting the FTC&mdash;you know it’s a bad case when we’re on the federal government’s side!&mdash;and arguing that courts should only rarely immunize private parties who act on government&#8217;s behalf. The Fourth Circuit was not only correct in applying the “active supervision” requirement, but existing immunity doctrines are too lax. Instead, courts should grant antitrust immunity to private entities acting under color of state law only where their restraint on competition is <em>commanded by state law</em>, and where that restraint substantially advances an important state interest. This test would help protect the constitutional right to economic liberty against the only entity that can normally create monopolies and yet which today enjoys immunity from antimonopoly laws: the government.</p>
http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/north-carolina-board-dental-examiners-v-federal-trade-commissionThu, 07 Aug 2014 (All day)Timothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy Sandefur, Ilya ShapiroD.C. Circuit Rules that Obamacare Is a “Tax” but Not a “Bill for Raising Revenue”http://www.cato.org/blog/dc-circuit-rules-obamacare-tax-not-bill-raising-revenue
<p>The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today <a href="http://blog.pacificlegal.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SisselDecision.pdf">tossed out the latest constitutional challenge to Obamacare</a>, which argues that if the individual mandate is a “tax,” as the Supreme Court said it is, it’s still unconstitutional because it did not originate in the House of Representatives, as the Constitution requires. <a href="http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2014/plfs-obamacare-challenge-gets-hearing/">I argued the case</a> on behalf of entrepreneur Matt Sissel in May.</p>
<p>Today’s decision, written by Judge Judith Rogers and joined by Judges Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins, holds that while the mandate may be a “tax,” it isn’t a “bill for raising revenue,” and is therefore exempt from the Origination Clause.</p>
<p>What’s the difference between a tax and a bill for raising revenue? Some court decisions have held that there are things that may appear to be taxes but are actually only penalties designed to enforce other kinds of laws. For example, in a 1943 case called <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=138+F.2d+992+&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=9035713318231293545&scilh=0"><em>Rodgers v. United States</em></a>, the court of appeals said that a tax that was imposed on people for growing more wheat than the government allowed (that’s the same wheat law that was at issue in the infamous <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/317/111"><em>Wickard v. Filburn</em></a>) wasn’t really a tax, but just an enforcement penalty or a fine. Such penalties aren’t “bills for raising revenue,” so they don’t have to start in the House.</p>
<p>The problem with that line of argument is that in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393"><em>NFIB v. Sebelius</em></a>, the Supreme Court said that the individual mandate, whatever else it might be, is not a penalty or a fine. That’s just why Chief Justice Roberts concluded that it was a tax! And that means that no such exemption should apply.</p>
<!--break--><p>Today’s D.C. Circuit decision acknowledges this, but holds that there is another variety of tax that isn’t a “bill for raising revenue.” And that is, taxes whose “main object or aim” is something other than generating income for the government. According to this “purposive approach,” the court says, the court should look to “the primary aim” of the bill to decide whether the Origination Clause applies—without regard for whether it will “generate substantial revenues.”</p>
<p>But the Supreme Court has never endorsed this vague “purposive approach,” and for good reason. Laws often have many “objects or aims”—particularly in an era of massive omnibus bills. The ACA is over 2,000 pages long, with provisions on all sorts of different subjects. Which one is its “main” object? What is the “main” object of a “stimulus package” or a general appropriations bill? What about a tax imposed to support the military? Is its “main object” to raise money—or to support the military? If judges are free to decide what the “main object or aim” of a bill is, and to apply the Constitution or not accordingly, then they should at least have some objective criteria for making that call…and the court can point to none. That’s because the Constitution makes no distinction, and the constitutional analysis does not hinge on what the “main object or aim” of a bill is. Instead, the question is whether the bill levies a tax, and puts that money into the general treasury for Congress to spend at will—which Obamacare’s individual mandate tax does.</p>
<p>Worse, the vague “purposive approach” creates a loophole that the Senate can easily walk through to originate revenue-raising bills. All it needs to do is originate a tax by saying that its main purpose is some other thing. One reason we know that isn’t what the Constitution says is that the <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=002/llfr002.db&recNum=278&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0021%29%29%3A%230020001&linkText=1">Framers rejected a proposed draft of the Origination Clause</a> that would have applied only to “[b]ills for raising money for the purpose of revenue.” The reason is obvious: because the vague “purpose” test would allow Congress to evade constitutional limits too easily.</p>
<p>There’s remarkably little Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Origination Clause. It seems likely that <a href="http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Sissel-3-1374">the <em>Sissel</em> case</a> will change that eventually.</p>
http://www.cato.org/blog/dc-circuit-rules-obamacare-tax-not-bill-raising-revenueTue, 29 Jul 2014 14:16 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses Obama's unilateral actions on FBN's Stosselhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-obamas-unilateral-actions-fbns-stossel
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-obamas-unilateral-actions-fbns-stosselThu, 17 Jul 2014 12:05 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Harris v. Quinn on FBN's The Independentshttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-hobby-lobby-v-sebelius-harris-v-quinn-fbns
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-hobby-lobby-v-sebelius-harris-v-quinn-fbnsMon, 30 Jun 2014 11:51 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses his book, The Conscience of the Constitution, on The Hugh Hewitt Showhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-hugh
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-hughMon, 16 Jun 2014 14:25 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurBeyond the Individual Mandate: The Obamacare "Tax" Is Still Unconstitutionalhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/beyond-individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-still-unconstitutional
<p>Follow the link below to watch the full event:
<a href="http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/beyond-individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-still-unconstitutional">http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/beyond-individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-still-unconstitutional</a></p>
<p>Featuring Timothy Sandefur, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University; and Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center; moderated by Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.</p>
<p>President Obama recently declared that “the debate” over the Affordable Care Act “is over.” That may be wishful thinking given that the law continues to be unpopular and its implementation keeps hitting snags. Moreover, lawsuits challenging Obamacare are once again reaching the nation&#8217;s highest courts. On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in Sissel v. Department of Health & Human Services, which involves the claim that the ACA&#8217;s “tax” on people without health insurance&mdash;as the Supreme Court deemed it two years ago&mdash;still violates the Constitution. The Constitution&#8217;s Origination Clause requires all tax bills to “originate” in the House of Representatives, while Obamacare came from the Senate (recall how the House voted on the Senate bill after Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts and deprived the Democrats of their filibuster-proof majority). Please join us to hear about Sissel and its implications for limited government from the attorney who will have just argued the case, Cato adjunct scholar Timothy Sandefur.</p>
<p>Video produced by Blair Gwaltney.</p>http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/beyond-individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-still-unconstitutionalThu, 15 May 2014 15:04 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurAnother Taxing Distinction for ObamaCarehttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/another-taxing-distinction-obamacare
<p>Lawsuits challenging Obamacare are once again reaching the nation’s highest courts.<br><br><a href="http://www.cato.org/events/beyond-individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-still-unconstitutional">Beyond the Individual Mandate: The Obamacare “Tax” Is Still Unconstitutional</a></p>http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/another-taxing-distinction-obamacareWed, 14 May 2014 17:02 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses taping the police on FBN's The Independentshttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-taping-police-fbns-independents
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-taping-police-fbns-independentsMon, 12 May 2014 13:16 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurBeyond the Individual Mandate: The Obamacare “Tax” Is Still Unconstitutionalhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/beyond-individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-still-unconstitutional
President Obama recently declared that “the debate” over the Affordable Care Act “is over.”&nbsp;That may be wishful thinking given that the law continues to be unpopular and its implementation keeps hitting snags. Moreover, lawsuits challenging Obamacare are once again reaching the nation’s highest courts.&nbsp;On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in <em>Sissel v. Department of Health & Human Services</em>, which involves the claim that the ACA’s “tax” on people without health insurance—as the Supreme Court deemed it two years ago—still violates the Constitution. The Constitution’s Origination Clause requires all tax bills to “originate” in the House of Representatives, while Obamacare came from the Senate (recall how the House voted on the Senate bill after Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts and deprived the Democrats of their filibuster-proof majority).&nbsp; Please join us to hear about <em>Sissel </em>and its implications for limited government from the attorney who will have just argued the case, Cato adjunct scholar Timothy Sandefur.http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/beyond-individual-mandate-obamacare-tax-still-unconstitutionalThu, 08 May 2014 12:00 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy Sandefur, Ilya Somin, Ilya Shapiro, Simon LazarusTimothy Sandefur discusses the First Amendment on KOA's The Mike Rosen Showhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-first-amendment-koas-mike-rosen-show
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-first-amendment-koas-mike-rosen-showTue, 29 Apr 2014 12:50 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurOrigination and ObamaCarehttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/origination-obamacare
<p>Bills to raise revenue are supposed to start in the U.S. House. So why did ObamaCare receive the “gut and replace” treatment when it arrived in the Senate?</p>
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/origination-obamacareThu, 27 Mar 2014 00:27 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTim Sandefur discusses his book, "The Conscience of the Constitution", on American Family Radio's Today's Issueshttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/tim-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-american
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/tim-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-americanWed, 12 Mar 2014 12:27 EDTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur on The Conscience of the Constitutionhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/timothy-sandefur-conscience-constitution
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/timothy-sandefur-conscience-constitutionSat, 01 Mar 2014 14:53 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurTimothy Sandefur discusses the constitution on FBN's Stosselhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-constitution-fbns-stossel
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/timothy-sandefur-discusses-constitution-fbns-stosselThu, 20 Feb 2014 15:51 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurAffirming the Conscience of the Constitutionhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/affirming-conscience-constitution
Event: <a href="http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/conscience-constitution-declaration-independence-right-liberty"><em>The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty</em></a>
<br />
Book: <a href="http://store.cato.org/books/conscience-constitution-declaration-independence-right-liberty-hardback"><em>The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty</em></a> (Hardback)
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/affirming-conscience-constitutionWed, 05 Feb 2014 15:30 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy SandefurThe Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Libertyhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/conscience-constitution-declaration-independence-right-liberty
<a href="http://store.cato.org/books/conscience-constitution-declaration-independence-right-liberty-hardback"><img src="http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/images/conscience-constitution-130.jpg" alt="The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px;" width="130" height="203"></a>In his latest Cato book, Tim Sandefur addresses one of the most neglected topics in modern American constitutional law, the philosophical foundations of the Constitution. He argues that for that we should look to the “conscience” of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, as Abraham Lincoln did. And if we do, we discover that the Constitution was written not to empower democratic majorities to rule widely, as happens today, but to secure our natural rights to liberty through limited government. In his penetrating analysis of those issues, Sandefur examines the origins of “substantive due process” and “judicial activism and restraint” to argue that only through an engaged judiciary will the promise of the Declaration be realized. Hadley Arkes, one of America’s leading scholars on these issues, will offer comments for what should be an enlightening and timely discussion of a subject of enduring importance. Please join us.http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/conscience-constitution-declaration-independence-right-libertyThu, 30 Jan 2014 12:00 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy Sandefur, Hadley Arkes, Roger PilonTimothy Sandefur discusses his book "The Conscience of the Constitution" on Westwood One's The Jim Bohannon Showhttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-westwood
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/timothy-sandefur-discusses-book-conscience-constitution-westwoodWed, 15 Jan 2014 12:26 ESTTimothy Sandefur (Author at Cato Institute)Timothy Sandefur